The problem with human history is that it is
disconnected, in the minds of most academics, from human evolution,
with the consequence that even professional historians have only a
superficial, and not particularly useful, understanding of their
subject.

How can we understand the development of society and its
history, without an understanding of human nature and behaviour? And
how can we understand these without understanding something of the
conditions and circumstances under which human nature and behaviour
evolved, over millions of years, and to which it is thus adapted?
Conditions and circumstances very different indeed to those of the
artificial, "socio-economic environment" we live in today, and where we
continue, greatly facilitated by the development of free-market
capitalism, our Darwinian, dump-animal struggle for survival and
advantage.

We don't teach this profoundly important aspect of
history to our children, because we haven't yet recognized it ourselves.

2nd Post

[fedup]: "Why do we bother?"

Why indeed? Why do we bother about anything?

This is a profoundly important question that it is well
worth pondering upon, before shooting off in this direction or that. It
applies to everything, of course, but especially to history.

There is an infinite amount of history out there (or
should it be, back there?), so one has to be extremely selective. But
who does the selecting, and where to start?

Perhaps by asking if we need or want to know any history
at all, and if so, what? and why?

The state's main interest in teaching history in the
schools it funds, is to inculcate in its citizens a sense of "national
identity". Our children are taught the "national story", which, of
course, has to be placed in the wider context of a European and global
story. The material is all selected for purpose, of course, but largely
subconsciously.

Having a shared story (history) used to be immensely
important as a source of social cohesion and common purpose, which has
been, and continues to be, misused by society's ruling elites (now the
nation state): "For God, Harry and St George . . . !" And off we go to
slaughter the French, or whoever the "enemy", according to our leaders,
happens to be.

Our main common purpose now is "economic growth" (rather
than wars), thus creating (as wars once did) an ever-expanding degree
of wealth and POWER for the ruling elite to dispose over - now,
"democratically" legitimized and shared out a little more fairly than
in the past.

But even if our leaders cannot "freely" dispose over all
the power available to them anymore, it is still immensely satisfying
(for their dumb-animal nature) and rewarding (socially and financially)
for them to administer it "on behalf" of the people they claim to
represent. And "British" HISTORY tells us what a fine and essential job
they are doing within the power structures of our GREAT nation state -
which, of course, we must never even question the necessity or
legitimacy of.

In a true, grass-roots, democracy, however, individuals
would decide for themselves, what their story (history) is, and with
whom they share enough of it to form a "society" . . . . . . . . Just a
thought.

[TheNuclearOption], I agree with you entirely about the
history of science and philosophy being far more important than the
machinations of monarchs.

The "machinations of monarchs" should be used to
illustrate the extent to which they and the societies they ruled over
were dominated by man's animal nature and behaviour, which would teach
us a great deal about modern society and its leaders . . . . . But I
sense a certain reluctance to enter upon this terrain.

3rd Post

I am very doubtful of the value of historical
dramatizations (which have been much praised on this thread),
especially when they go back more than a couple of hundred years, to
times so utterly different from our own. They may provide good
entertainment, but must surely present a very false and misleading
impression of the way things and people were in the past.

I would like to see some historical dramatizations
produced, with no thought to viewer numbers, under the strict control
of really competent historians, who could appear in the production - in
suitable fashion - to explain to the audience some of the detail, our
source of our knowledge, and the degree of conjecture involved.

From school, I think, children should come away with a
draft overview of western civilization, beginning with the Greeks, but
not neglecting the middle-eastern sources (Mesopotamian, Egyptian) on
which it drew. You can spend the rest of your life filling in some of
the details you find particularly interesting or relevant.

However, people from non-European backgrounds (heritage,
ancestry) may well want to take a very different perspective - i.e.
their OWN. This will tend to undermine the MYTH of a shared national
identify, certainly one based on history - and so it should.